Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi, USP 8,376,625.
Regarding claim 8, Wakabayashi discloses a bearing device for a vehicle wheel, the bearing device comprising: an outer member (3) having a double-row of outer raceway surfaces (12a/12b) on an inner circumference; an inner member (2) having a double-row of inner raceway surfaces (8a/8b) facing the double-row of outer raceway surfaces; and a double-row of rolling elements (4a/4b) rollably held between the outer raceway surfaces of the outer member and the inner raceway surfaces of the inner member, wherein the outer member has an inner-side induction-hardened part (16b, inner side as defined in the specification is on the vehicle side of the bearing, this corresponds to the right side in figures 1 and 2 of the reference, see column 8, lines 12-23) extending along the outer raceway surface on an inner-side, and an outer-side induction-hardened part (16b, see column 8, lines 12-23) extending along the outer raceway surface on an outer-side (left side of figures 1 and 2); the inner-side induction-hardened part and the outer-side induction-hardened part are separated from each other (the two hardened zones are space apart just like in the instant application); and in a region within a range where an angle with respect to a rotation axis of the bearing device for a vehicle wheel is from 30 to 45 degrees, a hardened layer depth of the outer-side induction-hardened part is deeper than the hardened layer depth of the inner-side induction-hardened part at the same angle and same circumferential position (in figure 2 the lines indicating the thickness Ta and Tb are shown at an angle of approximately 45 degrees, however even if this is determined not to be the case the thickness of Ta verse Tb below the dimension lines illustrated would cover an angle of 30 degrees and would always result in Ta being greater than Tb).
Wakabayashi, while disclosing different depths for the hardened zones, does not disclose that the outer side is 0.5mm to 2.2mm larger than the inner side.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing as an obvious matter of design choice to set the difference in depths to 0.5-2.2mm since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific range of the depth difference solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless of what the specific difference between the depths is. In addition, such a modification to Wakabayashi would have involved a mere selection of specific depth ranges and then defining them based on the difference therebetween, selecting of particular depths and reciting the difference therebetween and specific defining a range of 0.5-2.2mm would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (same induction hardened locations with different depths), discovering the optimum or workable ranges (either the thicknesses individually or reported as a difference between the thicknesses) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding the recitation “the difference between…while suppressing quenching cracks”, this recitation is not adding any additional structural limitation to the claim, thus the claim stands rejected for the reasons above. The phrase is defining the purpose or benefit of the invention (reason for different depths of hardening), the purpose or benefit is not defining a structural difference, by defining the same general structure of one depth being greater than the other which the specification links to the invention, not the specific dimension, see Remarks below for additional comments, the disclosure of Wakabayashi would have this property, see MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 9, Wakabayashi discloses that an outer-side outside diameter of the outer member is larger than an inner-side outside diameter of the outer member (the outer ring includes a stepped transition as shown in figure 2 with the outer side or left side having a larger diameter than the inner side or right side).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama, JP2008064268.
Regarding claim 10, Yokoyama discloses a bearing device for a vehicle wheel, the bearing device comprising: an outer member (3/3a) having a double-row of outer raceway surfaces (13a/13b) on an inner circumference; an inner member (2) having a double-row of inner raceway surfaces (8a/8b) facing the double-row of outer raceway surfaces; and a double-row of rolling elements (two rows 4) rollably held between the outer raceway surfaces of the outer member and the inner raceway surfaces of the inner member, wherein the outer member has an inner-side induction-hardened part (17b, inner side as defined in the specification is on the vehicle side of the bearing, this corresponds to the right side in figures 4 and 5 of the reference, see third paragraph in “best-mode” portion of the translation) extending along the outer raceway surface on an inner-side, and an outer-side induction-hardened part (17a) formed by induction hardening (see third paragraph in “best-mode” portion of the translation) extending along the outer raceway surface on an outer-side (left side of figures 4 and 5); the inner-side induction-hardened part and the outer-side induction-hardened part are joined (via 17c); and in a region within a range where an angle with respect to a rotation axis of the bearing device for a vehicle wheel is from 30 to 45 degrees, a hardened layer depth of the outer-side induction-hardened part is deeper than the hardened layer depth of the inner-side induction-hardened part at the same angle and circumferential position (in figure 2 the lines indicating the thickness Ta and Tb are shown at an angle of approximately 45 degrees, however even if this is determined not to be the case the thickness of Ta verse Tb below the dimension lines illustrated would cover an angle of 30 degrees and would always result in Ta being greater than Tb).
Yokoyama, while disclosing different depths for the hardened zones, does not disclose that the outer side is 0.5mm to 2.2mm larger than the inner side.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing as an obvious matter of design choice to set the difference in depths to 0.5-2.2mm since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific range of the depth difference solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless of what the specific difference between the depths is. In addition, such a modification to Yokoyama would have involved a mere selection of specific depth ranges and then defining them based on the difference therebetween, selecting of particular depths and reciting the difference therebetween and specific defining a range of 0.5-2.2mm would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (same induction hardened locations with different depths), discovering the optimum or workable ranges (either the thicknesses individually or reported as a difference between the thicknesses) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding the recitation “the difference between…while suppressing quenching cracks”, the recitation is not adding any additional structural limitation to the claim, thus the claim stands rejected for the reasons above. The phrase is defining the purpose or benefit of the invention, the purpose or benefit is not defining a structural difference, by defining the same general structure of one depth being greater than the other which the specification links to the invention, not the specific dimension, see Remarks below for additional comments, the disclosure of Yokoyama would have this property, see MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 11, Yokoyama discloses that an outer-side outside diameter of the outer member is larger than an inner-side outside diameter of the outer member (the outer ring includes a stepped transition as shown in figures 4 and 5, specifically the transition on the right side, with the outer side or left side having a larger diameter than the inner side or right side).
Claim(s) 12, 13, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi, USP 8,376,625, in view of Uchiyama, JP 2012202415.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Wakabayashi discloses the features of claims 8 and 9 and also discloses the use a seal member that closes an open end of an annular space formed by the outer member and the inner member (one seal on each end, seal on the right illustrated by the box with the X), wherein the outer member includes a seal fitting portion (surface that the seals contact, one at each end) to which the seal member is fitted.
Wakabayashi does not disclose the use of a pocket on an axially inner side of the seal fitting portion.
Uchiyama discloses that the axial inner ends of seal fitting portions in a wheel bearing can be provided with pockets (at 27’, see figures 8 and 9) for providing an engaging groove that can interact with the seal to improve the rigidity and pull out strength of the connection of the seal (see attached translation, top of page 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Wakabayashi and add a pocket on an axially inner side of the seal fitting portion, as taught by Uchiyama, for the purpose of providing an engaging groove that can interact with the seal to improve the rigidity and pull out strength of the connection of the seal.
As a result of the combination the pockets will be added to the device of Wakabayashi and results in an inner-side end of the inner-side induction-hardened part being located on a radially inner side of the pocket on the inner-side, or an outer-side end of the outer-side induction-hardened part being located on a radially inner side of the pocket on the outer-side since the pockets would have to extend radially outward from the seal fitting portion this would place induction hardened parts on the radially inner side of the pockets.
NOTE: The use of similar grooves is common practice in the art even if they are not intended to engage with a seal, these grooves can provide a number of different benefits, including removing material from a none critical area of the bearing (not load bearing) to reduce overall weight of the assembly.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Wakabayashi discloses an inner-side seal member (shown by the box with the X on the right side of figure 1) that closes an inner-side open end of an annular space defined by the outer member and the inner member; an outer-side seal member (lip seal shown on the left side of figure 1) that closes an outer-side open end of the annular space, wherein: the outer member includes an inside-side seal fitting portion to which the inner-side seal member is fitted, and an outer-side seal fitting portion to which the outer-side seal member is fitted (these are the stepped surfaces at each axial end in figure 2 just like the stepped surfaces of the instant application).
Wakabayashi does not disclose the use of a pocket on an axially inner side of the seal fitting portions (one pocket per seal fitting portion).
Uchiyama discloses that the axial inner ends of seal fitting portions in a wheel bearing can be provided with pockets (at 27’, see figures 8 and 9) for providing an engaging groove that can interact with the seal to improve the rigidity and pull out strength of the connection of the seal (see attached translation, top of page 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Wakabayashi and add a pocket on an axially inner side of the seal fitting portion, as taught by Uchiyama, for the purpose of providing an engaging groove that can interact with the seal to improve the rigidity and pull out strength of the connection of the seal.
As a result of the combination the pockets will be added to the device of Wakabayashi and results in an inner-side end of the inner-side induction-hardened part being located on a radially inner side of the pocket on the inner-side, and an outer-side end of the outer-side induction-hardened part being located on a radially inner side of the pocket on the outer-side since the pockets would have to extend radially outward from the seal fitting portion this would place induction hardened parts on the radially inner side of the pockets.
It is further noted that claims 8 and 18 as well as 9 and 19 are similar in scope with the primary difference being the use of “or” and “and” when defining the pocket feature, this difference is addressed in the last part of the rejections above however it is noted that any device with both sides having pockets would read upon both the “or” alternative and the “and” of the claims. This also applies to claims 14/20 and 15/21 and because of this these claims are being rejected simultaneously below.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama, JP2008064268, in view of Uchiyama, JP 2012202415.
Regarding claims 14, 15, 20 and 21, Yokoyama discloses the features of claims 10 and 11 and also discloses the use a seal member that closes an open end of an annular space formed by the outer member and the inner member (one seal on each end, seal on the right illustrated by the box with the X, see figure 1), wherein the outer member includes a seal fitting portion (surface that the seals contact, one at each end) to which the seal member is fitted.
Yokoyama does not disclose the use of a pocket on an axially inner side of the seal fitting portion.
Uchiyama discloses that the axial inner ends of seal fitting portions in a wheel bearing can be provided with pockets (at 27’, see figures 8 and 9) for providing an engaging groove that can interact with the seal to improve the rigidity and pull out strength of the connection of the seal (see attached translation, top of page 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Yokoyama and add a pocket on an axially inner side of the seal fitting portion, as taught by Uchiyama, for the purpose of providing an engaging groove that can interact with the seal to improve the rigidity and pull out strength of the connection of the seal.
As a result of the combination the pockets will be added to the device of Yokoyama and results in an inner-side end of the inner-side induction-hardened part being located on a radially inner side of the pocket on the inner-side, and an outer-side end of the outer-side induction-hardened part being located on a radially inner side of the pocket on the outer-side since the pockets would have to extend radially outward from the seal fitting portion this would place induction hardened parts on the radially inner side of the pockets.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi, USP 8,376,625, in view of Norimatsu, USP 8,678,661.
Regarding claim 17, Wakabayashi does not disclose that a surface hardness of the rolling elements is higher than a surface hardness of the double-row of outer raceway surfaces.
Norimatsu teaches that ceramic rolling elements can be used in combination with hardened steel raceway elements, ceramic elements having a significantly higher surface hardness than steel (see table 1 showing hardness values of ceramic vs steel, column 9, line 63-column 10, line 11 discussing the use of hardened steel races, and column 12, lines 45-column 14, line 16 discussing using ceramic balls).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Wakabayashi and use any previously known material for the rolling elements, including ceramic which has a higher surface hardness than hardened steel, as taught by Norimatsu, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination presented by the claim yields unexpected results specifically with regards to the relative depths however Applicant does not point to any place in the specification that explicitly supports this conclusion and the addition of what the alleged improvement is over the prior art does not further structurally limit the invention.
Paragraph 0007 of the original specification states that the solution to the problem is based on the depths of hardening being different and paragraph 0010 states that the advantage to using different depths in general is the indentation resistance and crack suppression, nowhere in the summary of the invention is the specific dimension claimed and linked to the improvement. In other words, the summary presented the invention as different depths in general provide the benefit however now Applicant is arguing that it’s not just different depths it’s the specific depth range recited in the claim however there is no evidence of this in the original filing. More specifically there is no evidence that the narrower range claimed yields any unexpected results, the disclosure generally attributes the improvement to the depth difference not the actual dimension, the actual dimension is only mentioned once in paragraph 0021. Paragraph 0021 is providing an “example” and nowhere does the disclosure state that this dimension is critical or provides unexpected results. Providing a non-limiting example of a difference with no other supporting evidence or linking the example specifically to the more generally described improvement throughout the rest of the disclosure does not establish criticality for the range nor does it establish any underlying facts for an unexpected result evaluation.
The previous office action discussed this same conclusion however Applicant’s remarks are not responding to this but is rather presenting the same argument in a different form. How does the sole example in paragraph 0021 which is not disclosed as being limiting or linked specifically to any criticality and is merely provided as an “example” establish unexpected results?
Ultimately there is no evidence of unexpected results in the original filing and more specifically no unexpected results linked to the specific dimension claimed thus the argument is inconsistent with the disclosure. The disclosure links the benefit/improvement to the more generally disclosure of one depth being greater than the other, this is shown in the prior art, thus the difference between the invention as now claimed and the prior art is a relative dimension that is not critical to the practice of the invention as disclosed in the original filing and therefore the specific dimension remains obvious in view of the prior art as explained above. Adding the benefit of the general invention as disclosed to the claim also does not provide a structural distinction over the prior art of record, for these reason the rejection as a whole is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights